Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92642 Case Number: AD92222 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AVONCOURT PACKAGING LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 203/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Court notes that the Employer indicated prior to the
hearing that it would not be attending.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company pay a
sum of #300 to the claimant.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92642 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD22292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AVONCOURT PACKAGING LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 203/92 concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. After eight months service with the Company, the worker was
dismissed on the 18th May, 1992. A claim for unfair dismissal was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute
on the 26th August, 1992 and issued the following recommendation
on the 10th September, 1992:
"That the Company offers, and the worker accepts the sum of
#150 in full and final settlement of this dispute, and any
matter arising from the termination of the employment, and
that the worker receives an appropriate reference".
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 3rd of November, 1992.
The Company wrote to the Court stating that it would not be
attending at the hearing. The Company also stated that the
worker was dismissed as a result of her abysmal sick-leave record
and because she walked-off the job.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dismissal was without warning.
2. Any sick-leave taken by the worker was certified by a
General Practitioner.
The worker is appealing the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation on the grounds that, the settlement amount
recommended by the Rights Commissioner is insufficient.
DECISION:
4. The Court notes that the Employer indicated prior to the
hearing that it would not be attending.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company pay a
sum of #300 to the claimant.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
16th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.